Tag: Public Policy Polling

• IN-Sen: An unnamed “Democratic strategist” quoted by The Hill suggests that ex-Rep. Tim Roemer (whose name hadn’t really come up before this year) is unlikely to run for Senate. Honestly, I’m not sure if the wankerish Roemer would really excite anyone… but we don’t seem to have a long list of possible names for this race.

• OH-Sen: PPP has another “everyone and the kitchen sink” primary polls, this time of the Republican senatorial primary in Ohio. In this case, the kitchen sink is named “Kenneth Blackwell,” and he comes in first in an eleventy-billion-way test, with all of 17%. I don’t think I’ve even heard Blackwell (last seen losing the 2006 gubernatorial race to Ted Strickland very badly) as a possible contender. Click the link for the other numbers.

• VA-Sen: I’ve got a new name you can root for: Tim Donner, a wealthy television production executive who is considering whether to challenge George Allen in the Republican primary. A spokesman tells Dave Catanese he’s a “couple weeks away” from making a decision. It’s not 100% clear whether he’s a teabagger, but I suspect he is, given that his mouthpiece attacked bona fide teabagger (and hopeless Some Dude) Jamie Radtke for “working in government since she graduated from college,” and because Donner thinks none of the candidates currently running “believe in the concept of a citizen legislature.” That sounds like something a teabagger trying to channel Patrick Henry might say, no? At the very least, we should be hoping he’ll rough Macaca up with a million or few.

• WV-Gov: This was expected, but it’s still an important get: State House Speaker Rick Thompson (D) scored the backing of the AFL-CIO, a key endorsement in what will likely be a low-turnout special primary. (As we noted last week, Thompson also picked up the support of a couple of teachers unions.) The election is May 14th.

• CA-36: Marta Evry at Calitics takes a look at the ActBlue fundraising numbers so far for the key Democrats in the race. The numbers are a moving target, but as of Friday, Janice Hahn had taken in $49K from 200 donors, while Debra Bowen had pulled in $41K but from a much larger 474 donors. Oh, and Marcy Winograd has now achieved joke status, with $1K raised. Also, some teabagger also joined the race, making him the fourth Republican to get in.

• Wisconsin Recall: Some very good sleuthing by Madison TV station WKOW27: The alleged mistress of GOP state Sen. Randy Hopper (the name you can’t forget) recently scored a government job, and Hopper said: “I want to keep my involvement of anything as a private matter. So, I’m going to maintain that.” He didn’t maintain that for very long, calling the station back and denying his involvement with the hiring. I’m not sure Jack McCoy ever got a witness to change his story so quickly – and incredibly. Even better, discovers WKOW, the woman in question got a 35% pay boost over the person who previously held the job. Scott Walker’s government austerity in action.

In other news, Greg Sargent says that GOP polling firm Public Opinion Strategies is in the field with a survey testing anti-union messages on recall target Alberta Darling’s behalf.

• DCCC: Biden alert! The VPOTUS was in Philadelphia on Friday, raising a cool $400K for the D-Triple-C. A long list of PA pols was in attendance, including ex-Rep. Patrick Murphy and a couple of unsuccessful 2010 candidates, Bryan Lentz and John Callahan. Also nice to see present: Arlen Specter, a guy whose age, brief tenure as an elected Dem, and inglorious exit from office would give him more than enough reason to stay away from this sort of thing forever. Too bad he didn’t have the sense to join our team decades ago!

• Redistricting Roundup:

With the bulk of census data out, redistricting stories are coming fast and furious now.

• Arkansas: Talk Business has copies of a few different congressional maps proposed by various lawmakers, as well as descriptions of some others. Click the link to have a look.

• California: Ugh, gross: One of two finalist consulting firms to help California’s new redistricting commission has hardcore Republican leanings, while two of four finalist law firms are similarly oriented. Of course, this is exactly what you risk when you leave things to a supposedly independent panel (that features a ridiculous level of Republican over-representation).

• Florida: One Democratic consultant thinks that Florida’s population growth suggests that new districts (the state is getting two) could be anchored to regions that would favor two Republicans in particular: ex-LG Jeff Kottkamp and state Sen. Paula Dockery. Kottkamp lost the GOP primary for AG last year, while Dockery dropped out of the gubernatorial primary.

• Iowa: The Hawkeye State’s independent redistricting commission will release its first proposes congressional and state maps on March 31st. (Remember, IA loses a House seat.) As the Des Moines Register points out, “Either chamber of the Iowa Legislature or Republican Gov. Terry Branstad can reject proposals twice. If they don’t like the third, the Iowa Supreme Court decides the boundaries.”

• Louisiana: A bunch more proposed maps have been released by the state lege. Republican state House Speaker Jim Tucker’s plans can be found here, while Democratic state Senate President Joel Chaisson’s are toward the end of this document.

• Missouri: Show Me State lawmakers are starting their work on redistricting, but if they don’t have a congressional plan by May 13th, then it’ll get kicked over to the courts. State legislative maps aren’t due until September.

• Mississippi: I’m not really sure I’m getting this: The NAACP is suing the state of Mississippi over its redistricting plans, but the legislature hasn’t even passed anything yet. It seems like this case would fail from the get-go on ripeness grounds (i.e., a court would say that the dispute isn’t ready to be heard because the plaintiff doesn’t have actual maps to complain about), so I’m not really sure what the NAACP’s angle is here.

• Pennsylvania: PoliticsPA talked to some insiders who are crediting Dave Wasserman’s sources and saying that his most recent map is apparently pretty close to the plan that the state’s Republicans are supposedly reaching consensus on. (Maybe both share the same sources, though – who knows?) Click through for all the details. The most salient feature is something a lot of people here have also proposed: a matchup between Jason Altmire and Mark Critz, the two most junior Democrats in the delegation, in order to deal with PA’s loss of a seat.

• Virginia: Lawmakers are potentially looking to release state legislative maps as early as the end of the month – which makes sense, since VA holds its House and Senate elections this November.

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/6-9, “usual Missouri Republican primary voters,” no trendlines):

Sarah Steelman (R): 31

Todd Akin (R): 24

Ed Martin (R): 9

Ann Wagner (R): 2

Undecided/other: 34

Sarah Steelman (R): 37

Ed Martin (R): 18

Ann Wagner (R): 11

Undecided/other: 34

(MoE: ±4.9%)

I don’t have much to say here except that the primary vote share (either with or without Akin) almost perfectly correlates with how well known these candidates are – as in, a correlation of 1. Put another way, if you add each person’s “don’t know” share on the favorable/unfavorable question to their vote share on the horserace question, you get just about the same number for all candidates. This says to me that Ed Martin has a lot of work to do to get his name out there, and that Todd Akin (who has only just now ramped up to “considering” status) should not be scared off by Sarah Steelman’s early lead.

And just for fun:

Mike Huckabee (R): 29

Newt Gingrich (R): 19

Sarah Palin (R): 14

Mitt Romney (R): 13

Ron Paul (R): 7

Mitch Daniels (R): 4

Tim Pawlenty (R): 3

Haley Barbour (R): 2

Other/undecided: 10

(MoE: ±4.9%)

(Cross-posted from Daily Kos.)

We asked our pollster, Public Policy Polling, to test the waters in all eight Republican-held state Senate districts in Wisconsin which are currently the target of recall efforts. PPP went into the field over the weekend, and the numbers we got back are very interesting. I’ve summarized the key results in the table below.

We asked a battery of questions in each poll (links to full results are at the end of this post). One basic question asked whether respondents approve of the job performance of each senator-those numbers are in the first two columns after each incumbent’s name. Four senators have negative ratings, and one is even-not particularly welcome news for Republicans.

We also asked whether respondents support or oppose the idea of recalling their senators. As you can see in the next pair of columns, this question doesn’t test as well-pluralities say they favor recall in just three districts-but in a way, it’s the least important question we asked. As long as canvassers collect enough valid signatures, a recall election will happen automatically under Wisconsin law. So while this is helpful information to have, it is far from dispositive, especially when contrasted with the next pair of columns.

“Vote Incumbent” and “Vote Democrat” summarize data from our most critical question. We asked poll-takers whether, in a hypothetical election that would be held later this year, they’d support the incumbent (whom we mentioned by name), or his/her “Democratic opponent.” (This sort of question is often described as testing a “generic Democrat.”) Here, the results give us reason to be cautiously optimistic.

Three Republican incumbents actually trail “generic Dem”: Luther Olsen, Randy Hopper, and Dan Kapanke. Two more have very narrow leads and garner less than 50% support: Rob Cowles and Sheila Harsdorf. And one more, Alberta Darling, holds a clear lead but is still potentially vulnerable. (Two recall-eligible senators, Mary Lazich and Glenn Grothman, sit in extremely red districts and look to have safe leads.) These numbers suggest we have a chance to make five and possibly six recall races highly competitive.

But a key thing to remember, though, is that if any of these senators have to face a recall election, we’ll need an actual candidate to run against each of them. In that regard, Wisconsin’s recalls are very different from California’s, where in 2003 voters were simply asked if they wanted to remove Democratic Gov. Gray Davis from office. Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected (with less than a majority) by means of a separate ballot question. In my view, California’s system makes it easier to boot an office-holder, because at bottom, the first question simply asks if you’d prefer some other-any other-alternative. If your answer was “yes,” you then had your choice on the second question, whether it was Arnold (R) or Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (D) or Gary Coleman (?). In Wisconsin, if a recall election makes it on to the ballot, there is no California-style first question-we go directly to a head-to-head between candidates (with a possible stop along the way for primaries). So for a recall to succeed, we’ll need to convince voters to support a real live Democrat-and that means we’ll have to recruit some good candidates.

As the recall process moves forward, you’ll want to bookmark this link and keep it handy. It’s a chart of the 2004 & 2008 presidential results in each state Senate district in Wisconsin. While not a perfect measurement, the presidential numbers offer a clear baseline for a rough-cut assessment of how competitive each district is likely to be. Of course, many other factors are involved, but if you click the link, you’ll understand immediately why Kapanke is in such trouble – he’s in the bluest district held by a Republican, one that went 61% for Obama and 53% for Kerry. A little further down the list, you’ll see that Olsen, Cowles, Hopper, Harsdorf, and Darling all occupy districts with roughly similar presidential results that hover in swingy territory, so you can see why at least the first four are at risk. Darling’s stronger performance is somewhat surprising, given that senators in comparable districts all do worse, but even she is not out of the woods. Bringing up the rear are Lazich and Grothman, who holds the most Republican seat in the entire state. It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which either of them could fall.

One final detail: You’ll notice that in the table up above, the last column reads “Number of Responses.” That refers to how many people actually completed our poll when we called them. If you’re familiar with electoral polling at all, those numbers are simply eye-popping, particularly for state senate districts. Our target was 600 to 800 respondents per poll, and yet we got well into the two thousand range for all but one of them (and even that outlier had over 1,300). What does this mean? The only reasonable conclusion is that an unusually high proportion of Wisconsinites are tuned into this conflict, and when given the opportunity to make their opinions heard, they jumped at the chance. While we can’t yet say for sure whether the enthusiasm gap has been erased, we do know that folks in Wisconsin are very definitely paying attention.

And so, of course, are we. As the situation warrants, we’ll revisit these districts and test the poll numbers again. For now, though, we wait on the outcome of the petition drive to force these recall elections in the first place. Then the battle will really begin.

Full Results: Cowles | Darling | Harsdorf | Olsen | Hopper | Grothman | Lazich | Kapanke

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/10-13, Ohio voters, Dec. 2010 in parens):

Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 49 (43)

Jon Husted (R): 34 (38)

Undecided: 18 (18)

Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 49 (43)

Jim Jordan (R): 30 (35)

Undecided: 21 (22)

Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 49 (40)

Mary Taylor (R): 30 (38)

Undecided: 21 (22)

Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 48

Josh Mandel (R): 32

Undecided: 21

Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 48

Steve LaTourette (R): 30

Undecided: 22

Sherrod Brown (D-inc): 49

Drew Carey (R): 34

Undecided: 17

(MoE: ±4.1%)

Some days, I get out of bed and have to think about which Republican it is I hate the most. Usually, though, I don’t, because it just winds up being John Kasich. But today, if Public Policy Polling is right about these numbers, then John Kasich is my new BFF – and Sherrod Brown’s, too. I always like seeing a d-bag like Kasich suffer, but when that also helps a great progressive like Brown, well hell, it’s a great day for America! Tom notes three key points:

1) There are more undecided Republicans than Democrats, so these mostly no-name GOP candidates have more room to grow – but at 48 or 49 points, Brown is already very close to victory.

2) In December, Brown was tied among independents with his potential opponents. Now he has sizable leads – for instance, 18 points against Lt. Gov. (and former Auditor) Mary Taylor.

3) Similarly, Democrats are coming home. Brown was just 75-15 among members of his own party versus Taylor; now he’s 86-3. Brown may not have much crossover appeal, but at this point, neither do the Republicans.

I’ll add another observation: PPP asked respondents whom they voted for in 2008. The answer: 49% Obama, 46% McCain. That’s very close to Obama’s actual 4-point margin. While I’d bet that not all of these Obama voters will pull the lever for him a second time, this does demonstrate that the 2012 electorate is looking a hell of a lot more like 2008 than 2010. If that holds, then we might not do too badly.

I love do-over polls, especially when they show numbers like this, and especially when they feature John Kasich.

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/10-13, Ohio voters, no trendlines):

Q: If you could do last fall’s election for Governor over again, would you vote for Democrat Ted Strickland or Republican John Kasich?

Ted Strickland (D): 55

John Kasich (R-inc): 40

Undecided: 5

Q: In the election for Governor last year did you vote for Democrat Ted Strickland or Republican John Kasich, or did you not vote in the election?

Ted Strickland (D): 49

John Kasich (R-inc): 46

Didn’t vote/don’t remember: 5

(MoE: ±4.1%)

Kasich’s job approval (the first tested by PPP) is a truly miserable 35-54. PPP also posed a question on SB5, a bill which would institute “right-to-work” in the state of Ohio. This legislation, once law, would almost certainly go before the voters in the form of a ballot question, probably this November. It’s definitely helping to drag Kasich down:

Q: If Senate Bill 5, which would limit collective bargaining rights for public employees, passes the legislature and is signed by the Governor there may be a statewide vote this fall on repealing the bill. Would you vote to repeal Senate Bill 5 or would you vote to let the law stand, or are you not sure?

Would vote to repeal SB5: 54

Would vote to let the law stand: 31

Not sure: 15

(MoE: ±4.1%)

Once again, I’ll let Tom have the final words:

Of course the reality is that Democratic leaning voters did this to themselves to some extent. It’s a small sample but among those who admit they didn’t vote last fall, Strickland has a 57-13 advantage over Kaisch. It was a similar story in Wisconsin the other week where Tom Barrett led Scott Walker 59-22 among those who had stayed at home in 2010. Democratic voters simply did not understand the consequences – or didn’t care – of their not voting last fall and they’re paying the price right now. But the winners of that realization in the long run may be Barack Obama, Sherrod Brown, and Herb Kohl – these states are already looking politically a whole lot more like 2008 than 2010.

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/3-6, Missouri voters, Dec. 2010 in parens):

Jay Nixon (D-inc): 45 (47)

Peter Kinder (R): 38 (39)

Undecided: 17 (14)

(MoE: ±4.0%)

Tom notes that Nixon is unusually popular – and has unusual crossover appeal:

Nixon has well above average approval numbers for a Governor in our polling, with 47% of voters happy with the job he’s doing to 31% who express disapproval of him. Nixon’s numbers have an unusual pattern by party. Only 60% of Democrats like what he’s doing while 24% disapprove. That’s a tepid level of support from within his own party. But he has almost as many Republicans – 32% – who approve of his performance as there are – 40% – who are unhappy. It’s rare to see any politician come that close to breaking even across party lines. And he has very solid numbers with independents as well at a 48/26 spread.

These numbers, while great, are still a good bit removed from those absurdly gaudy POS numbers that showed Nixon with a 61-26 approval rating. I’m much more inclined to believe PPP’s numbers. Kinder’s favorables, I should point out, are just 25-24, but half the state still doesn’t know him, so he has upside. Tom also points out that Nixon’s lead with independents is just 3%, a far cry from the 30+ he beat Kenny Hulshof by in 2008. So I think you gotta give the edge to Nixon, but just given that this is Missouri here, it looks like it’ll be competitive.

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/3-6, “usual” Maine Republican primary voters, no trendlines):

Olympia Snowe (R-inc): 43

Scott D’Amboise (R): 18

Andrew Ian Dodge (R): 10

Undecided: 28

Olympia Snowe (R-inc): 33

Republican Jesus (R): 58

Undecided: 9

(MoE: ±4.7%)

I agree with Tom: These numbers are not good for Snowe, not at all. D’Amboise and Dodge are truly at Some Dude levels, with only 5% and 2% (two percent!) favorables respectively, and yet the incumbent manages to score only 43% of primary voters. Moreover, as Tom reminds us, “Lisa Murkowski’s approval with Republicans in January of 2010 was 77/13 and Mike Castle’s in March of 2009 at an identical point in the cycle was 69/24.” As I’ve been saying all along, if the Tea Party Express or the Club for Growth throws down here, Snowe is in a heap of trouble. (By the way, “Republican Jesus” is the technical term for what PPP calls “a more conservative challenger.”)

This is all very poignant for Snowe, because, look:

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/3-6, Maine voters, no trendlines):

Emily Cain (D): 20

Olympia Snowe (R-inc): 64

Undecided: 16

Rosa Scarcelli (D): 18

Olympia Snowe (R-inc): 66

Undecided: 17

Emily Cain (D): 33

Scott D’Amboise (R): 33

Undecided: 34

Rosa Scarcelli (D): 29

Scott D’Amboise (R): 36

Undecided: 35

Emily Cain (D): 32

Andrew Ian Dodge (R): 30

Undecided: 37

Rosa Scarcelli (D): 29

Andrew Ian Dodge (R): 33

Undecided: 38

(MoE: ±2.8%)

Those are some massive numbers for an incumbent in a swing state. And note the crossover appeal – Emily Cain, for instance, does 13 points better against the nobodies (fellow nobodies?) than she does against Snowe. Yet Snowe might not even get the chance to have this fight. But like Yoda said, there is another….

Emily Cain (D): 17

Scott D’Amboise (R): 21

Olympia Snowe (I): 54

Undecided: 7

Rosa Scarcelli (D): 15

Scott D’Amboise (R): 20

Olympia Snowe (I): 56

Undecided: 9

Emily Cain (D): 15

Andrew Ian Dodge (R): 19

Olympia Snowe (I): 56

Undecided: 10

Rosa Scarcelli (D): 13

Andrew Ian Dodge (R): 19

Olympia Snowe (I): 57

Undecided: 10

(MoE: ±2.8%)

In this hypothetical scenario where Snowe runs as an independent, she also posts huge numbers, peeling from both sides. I’ll turn it over to Tom once more to provide the closing words:

If Snowe continues on as a Republican this is a race that an ambitious Democrat who doesn’t have a ton to lose should really look at. Obviously if Snowe emerges as the Republican nominee you’re going to lose and you’re going to lose by a lot. If Snowe ends up running as an independent you’re probably going to lose and you’re probably going to lose by a lot. But if Snowe stays the course and gets taken out you might become Chris Coons – a guy who was willing to throw his name in the hat when it looked impossible and ended up coasting to an easy general election victory.

For Snowe there’s a hard route to reelection and an easy one – it’ll be interesting to see if she sticks with the hard one.

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/3-6, Missouri voters, Dec. 2010 in parens):

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 45 (45)

Sarah Steelman (R): 42 (44)

Undecided: 14 (12)

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 45

Todd Akin (R): 44

Undecided: 11

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 46

Ed Martin (R): 40

Undecided: 14

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 45

Ann Wagner (R): 36

Undecided: 19

(MoE: ±4%)

Tom Jensen takes the words right out of my mouth:

Less noteworthy than the difference between McCaskill’s single point lead against Akin and her nine point advantage against Wagner is that McCaskill’s support shows no variation from 45-46% across the four match ups. The Republicans get varying levels of support pretty much directly in line with their name recognition: 44% know Akin, 44% know Steelman, 34% know Martin, and only 26% know Wagner. The GOP field is largely anonymous at this point.

McCaskill’s leads, even as small as they are, shouldn’t be particularly reassuring for her. There are at least twice as many undecided Republicans as Democrats in each match up, suggesting that once the GOP candidates become better known they will probably catch up to her pretty quickly.

One thing to note, though, is that the gathering field for the GOP represents something of a B-team, especially with Akin unlikely to get in. And while the group as a whole, as Tom notes, is mostly unknown, they all have negative favorables among those who do know them, except for Steelman, who doesn’t fare much better with a flat even 22-22. I think a Steelman-Martin primary could be extremely toxic, and something McCaskill has to be rooting for.

If there’s a silver lining here, it’s that PPP has a 38D, 37R, 25I sample. That’s a lot less Dem than the 40D-34R that the 2008 exit polls had it as, but a little better than the than the 39R-37D 2006 exit polls.

Virginia and Rhode Island don’t have a lot in common, except for the fact that PPP just put out Republican primary numbers for both states this week. So we figured we’d bundle `em up into one post.

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (2/24-27, VA Republican primary voters, no trendlines):

George Allen (R): 67

Bob Marshall (R): 7

David McCormick (R):3

Jamie Radtke (R): 4

Corey Stewart (R): 3

Undecided: 18

(MoE: ±4.9)

This is disappointing news for anyone – such as myself – hoping to see George Allen get teabagged. In a one-on-one matchup against Republican Jesus (aka “someone more conservative”), Allen wins by 52-25 – impressive numbers, and far better than anyone else PPP has asked this question of. The important thing to remember, though, is that in 2010, the most important factor in whether an establishment candidate could be successfully teabagged to death was the involvement of the Tea Party Express. Though they’re a bunch of grifters who keep the lion’s share of what they raise for themselves, they’re also capable of changing elections. The Club for Growth can do this, too (and did so, in the NY-23 special), though they seem to be playing ball with the GOP bigs more often these days.

If Allen doesn’t cheese off TPX, or if they simply decide he’s too strong, then he may well just cruise to the nomination. I have a hard time seeing Bob Marshall gaining much traction (i.e., raising much money) without some outside help. (Anyhow, the most interesting news out of Virginia is just how well Obama is doing there: 48-42 over Mitt Romney and bigger margins against everyone else.)

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (2/16-22, RI Republican primary voters, no trendlines):

Don Carcieri (R): 44

Scott Avedisian (R): 12

Buddy Cianci (R): 12

John Loughlin (R): 12

John Robitaille (R): 12

Allan Fung (R): 6

Catherine Taylor (R): 2

Giovanni Cicione (R): 0

John Robitaille (R): 31

John Loughlin (R): 24

Scott Avedisian (R): 21

Allan Fung (R): 14

Giovanni Cicione (R): 3

Catherine Taylor (R): 2

Undecided: 6

(MoE: ±6.2)

As Tom notes, Carcieri, the immediate past governor, actually performs the worst of all Republicans against Whitehouse. However, no one’s actually confirmed a run, so who knows who the GOP nominee will be. (For what it’s worth, Romney, the former governor of next-door Massachusetts, unsurprisingly cleans up in the presidential race.)

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (2/24-27, Wisconsin voters, trendlines from 12/10-12/2010):

Herb Kohl (D-inc): 52 (51)

JB Van Hollen (R): 37 (38)

Undecided: 11 (11)

Herb Kohl (D-inc): 49 (48)

Paul Ryan (R): 42 (42)

Undecided: 10 (11)

Herb Kohl (D-inc): 51

Mark Neumann (R): 37

Undecided: 12

Russ Feingold (D): 51 (52)

JB Van Hollen (R): 39 (41)

Undecided: 10 (7)

Russ Feingold (D): 49 (50)

Paul Ryan (R): 42 (43)

Undecided: 9 (7)

Russ Feingold (D): 50

Mark Neumann (R): 40

Undecided: 10

(MoE: ±3.5%)

You might be sitting there thinking “Hey, didn’t I see these numbers before?” and, if so, you’re right… PPP polled Wisconsin’s 2012 Senate race in December when the specter of a Herb Kohl retirement seemed to be looming larger than now, and their new round of polling (obviously more focused on the standoff over collective bargaining rights and the prospect of recalling Scott Walker) finds very little has changed in that race amidst the rest of the state’s upheaval.

The most notable changes are that they’ve swapped in ex-Rep. (and 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary loser) Mark Neumann in place of Tommy Thompson, only to find he does no better than the other options… and they note a big drop in Paul Ryan’s favorables, in the period since his SOTU response (the place where Republican rising stars go to die), down to 36/35 from a previous 38/30. Herb Kohl’s approval is 50/30, while newbie Ron Johnson’s approval (32/28) is worse than the favorables of the guy he just beat, Russ Feingold (51/39). What a difference a little presidential-year-electorate makes!